Re: Expectations, artifice, and a hell of a can of worms

["James Pokorny" <j.pokorny@worldnet.att.net>]

Mark wrote:

>I kind of disagree about not giving the audience a bit of an idea of what
>you're doing.  You don't have to pontificate about it, or go into minutia,
>but a tad of explanation can be good.  You rarely see a painting or
>photograph that doesn't describe the medium a bit.  Why not music?
Usually,
>it's self explanatory, a guy is playing an electric guitar through an amp.
>Sax into a PA, Vocal, etc.  But when you're doing something that's not
>evident, I think people like a little heads up.  Of course, all this is 
>*in
>addition to a good performance of interesting music*, not instead of.  I
>think a little explanation before your performance is nice, and can build 
>a
>rapport with your audience.  I've only had good experiences while doing 
>it.


I agree with Mark, who brings up some excellent points:

1) it's helpful to give an audience some guidance to unfamiliar territory
2) a few words, not an entire lecture
3) the explanation doesn't substitute for a mediocre performance

My primary musical focus is the classical music of North India.  Since most
audiences are unfamiliar with this tradition and its conventions and
expectations, I always begin with a short explanation of the music itself,
sometimes giving concrete examples such as the scale or rhythmic pattern
which will be used, or some of the predominant melodic motives which will 
be
heard repeatedly.  I tend to be on the talkative side, so I consciously try
to keep the explanation to a minimum.  That is, I'll describe the melody,
rhythm, movement, and mood or associations of the raga that the audience is
about to hear, as opposed to giving a long boring technical/theoretical
history of the musical system itself.  BTW, I do the same when performing
for Indian audiences who may be more familiar with vocal music than with
instrumental.  Many listeners have told me that they really appreciate 
being
given some pointers of what to listen for in the music, and that it has
helped shed some light on what otherwise would have been an unknown entity.

My teacher told me years ago that the music should speak for itself, but
that a few words might be in order to help elucidate unfamiliar aspects.
She also gave me really great advice:  the concert platform is NOT a
classroom; never talk down to an audience; and that if giving a verbal
introduction, not to confuse the audience with technical terms (either
Indian or Western).

Mark's third point is perhaps the most important of all -- that the music
itself should be well-played and interesting, and that any introduction or
explanation should heighten its appreciation, rather than serve as an
apology for it.

Personally, I've found the "say a few words about the music" approach to be
very useful and to help connect with listeners.  Of course, everyone has
their own style and manner of presentation, and we've all certainly been
moved tremendously many times simply by the power of music, whether or not
there was any spoken introduction.